As President Donald Trump weighs military action against Iran, the debate inside Washington is less about authorization than framing.
A senior State Department official told MBN there is no clear congressional mandate for a strike, but that the administration is reviewing options that would not require one. “We’re looking at the legal and political dimensions together,” the official said. “Nothing has been decided.”
The central framework is counterterrorism.
By designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, the administration can treat IRGC commanders, command centers, and infrastructure as terrorist targets rather than state military assets. A congressional source from House Intelligence Committee leadership told MBN this is intentional. “That designation gives the president room to act without coming to Congress,” the source said. “It’s the Soleimani logic.”
That precedent still matters. In 2020, Trump ordered the strike that killed Qassem Soleimani by arguing it was necessary to prevent imminent attacks on U.S. forces. Congress objected after the fact, but the strike proceeded under existing authorities. The same legal structure is now being examined again.
The second legal argument rests on Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the president authority as commander in chief to defend U.S. forces. With roughly 30,000 to 40,000 American troops deployed across the Middle East, administration officials argue the president does not need congressional approval to act preemptively if there is intelligence indicating an imminent threat. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been explicit: if Iranian forces appear poised to attack U.S. personnel, the president can strike to protect them.
Behind the scenes, intelligence work has intensified.
European intelligence sources told MBN that the deployment of RC-135 Rivet Joint surveillance aircraft to the Gulf is a key indicator. These aircraft map radar systems, air defenses, and IRGC communications work are typically done when planners are refining real target packages. “That’s when discussions move from abstract to operational,” one source said.
Gulf officials visiting Washington are focused less on whether strikes occur than on what they hit. Israeli officials are pushing a broad target set tied to nuclear and missile infrastructure. Saudi officials, European sources say, are pressing for narrower, leadership-focused strikes to avoid regional escalation.
For now, no final order has been given. There are no active negotiations with Iran, but the military buildup continues, and surveillance has intensified. Trump’s rhetoric has sharpened, but the timing remains open.
The structure is already in place. By framing any action as counterterrorism and self-defense, the White House can move without a vote. What remains undecided is not whether the president can strike, but which targets best serve his objectives, and when.
Joe Kawly
Joe Kawly is a veteran global affairs journalist with over two decades of frontline reporting across Washington, D.C. and the Middle East. A CNN Journalism Fellow and Georgetown University graduate, his work focuses on U.S. foreign policy, Arab world politics, and diplomacy. With deep regional insight and narrative clarity, Joe focuses on making complex global dynamics clear, human, and relevant.
